sfc

You said Yes, let's make some HONEST statements - perhaps you should do some research on WHO forced that budget from 95 on. Here's a hint - it wasn't POTUS. and then you said So when it is a democratic POTUS it is the GOP congress that gets credit for the best fiscal policy for decades, but when it is a GOP POTUS. You are so partisan and inconsistent, not that I didn't know that already but this is a really good demonstration, maybe you will believe it, they are your words after all.

They would represent a pretty big chunk - probably another 1/3 as a conservative estimate. However, this is something that Congress cannot disclaim responsibility for. Not the current Pelosi lead Congress, but Congress all the same. To their benefit, they did have sunset clauses, usually 2010, for most of the cuts. True, bush had help from congress, thankfully the current congress will not renew the tax breaks (successfully standing up to bush for once) and we will get closer to spending what we earn.

That has always happened, inflation, population growth, economic growth, but if you cut taxes without cutting spending then you end up in the situation we are in now.

Congress IS in a position of power regarding warmaking. Congress GAVE the POTUS the authority to do it in October, 2002. So Congress, um, can TAKE IT BACK. We covered this in the discussion of the WPA or other solutions to the current inpotency of Congress. Congress really can't make military units come back once they're out there. And no, the war isn't the 100% cause of the deficit, but it looks like about 1/3rd of it. I don't know the exact figures but I bet the bush tax cuts would account for a significant portion of the remaining 2/3. The massive interest we pay each year is also substantially bush's fault as he was responsible for borrowing a huge piece of the national debt.

Abort if my S.O. was OK with it, in fact we had the test, thankfully it turned out negative.

And what pray tell would the right wing be screaming IF the Congress did cut off the funding the Administration wants???? HMMMM Buehler...Buehler??????? So the Democrats didn't provide checks and balances because they were afraid the Republicans would scream and call them names ... So you would support congress if they pulled funding for the illegal war in Iraq? Give me a break, you can't just turn off the tap without a plan to get the troops home, and bushy boy hasn't even been prepared to talk unless it is about asking for more cash.

Especially considering that he started out with a surplus, courtesy of the "tax & spend Democrats". The last deficit was a joint effort by several presidents and years in the making. This one should get some kind of a "do it yourself" award. It took some real initiative & determination. Go Boy George ! P.S. Nice to see the countdown spirit is spreading. 176 days is still too long, but the number is coming down. But you have to remember cutting taxes causes the economy to grow and results in more tax revenue, WRONG, I guess he forgot the part about causing it all to overheat and explode, way to go george, your buddies made tons of cash over at the oil companies and defense contractors, it's just too bad that the little people that got fucked. If you use firefox this is a good plugin, keeps the counter on screen all the time. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3792 175 days to go.

I prefer the option of an executive branch that actual doesn't overspend. 175 days and counting.

A record federal deficit $490,000,000,000 Congratulations to the administration, the people are proud of your achievement. 176 days and counting.

Why's it ironic? You're demonstrating right here that his followers look at him like he is the second-coming. So I'd say the "right-wing religious extremists" have pretty much pegged what Obama and his zealots think he is. Do you know what irony and satire are?

the thing I like best about it is that it is an American car, it is about time we started building something that will compete with honda and toyota

hardly, it is not a hybrid drive system. It's an electric car with a generator that uses gas.

If you listened to the speech his point is that he wants to dealing with terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons by working WITH other countries (building bridges, it is a metaphor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor) He used Nato's defeat of the USSR as an example of the USA working well with other Nations. You really have to listen to the whole thing and not take sound bites out of context, he was not actually taking about building real bridges around the world you know (did you look at the link for metaphor, you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy), his speeches are not a collection of unconnected phrases, he (unlike some others) puts together a comprehensive coherent speech and he delivers it really well. P.S. Don't forget to accuse me of looking down my nose at you.

Do you happen to know the source? It is not from the US You should ask the original poster, but it would not be the first time that the neocon ultra-right wing fascists religious extremists (NUWFRE) have plagiarized other peoples words for their own ends.

How ironic, the neocon ultra-right wing fascists religious extremists comparing Obama with Jesus. I have news for you, he is going to rise on the third day and become our next president so you better get used to it. At least it will allow you to replace the CDIF record, it is so worn out now you need something new. [

No one forced anyone to buy these houses but the government does control the regulation of the mortgages which were used to buy them. Weak regulation led to mortgage companies/advisors lending to the maximum of their ability rather than in the customer's best interests. In the UK the government strengthened the Financial Services Authority which then enforced stronger rules on how mortgages are sold. I would therefore say that the US government by not enforcing or creating a suitable regulatory framework is therefore to blame for the meltdown in the US housing market. Having a free market is a great thing but when it is abused with the protaganists being unwilling to do anything about it then the government has an obligation to step in. I've just seen this on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7522160.stm inparticular this part The bill would set up the first national licensing system for mortgage brokers and other loan officers. Ant the UK housing market is in a great shape because of all the extra regulation, I don' think so, prices are falling just as fast over there, it is just a year or two behind like all economic change is. I actually agree with you that lax regulation is partially to blame for the crisis we are in now, ut the main cause is greed, and that is just as bad in the UK as it is here in the USA, but don't come on with that holier than thou bullshit.

Are you on drugs? You are the one that is all up in arms about it, I was just giving you a solution. Dang, when my kids used to act like you are I would just send them to their room or make them muck stalls for a while. can i come out now?

Mike, On an ideal/simplified/far-end/potential challenge, you are correct. But you’ve missed a few steps. And frankly this is NOT high school government/civics level stuff … altho’ one can argue whether it should be. W/r/t to this specific proposed (or draft) change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), [SFC] is (more) correct. See pdf copy of the draft Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule (NB: the draft rule was leaked, therefore you are unlikely to find it on hhs.gov; that source was the first one that I found through Google.) Please note (anyone who doesn’t understand this) that the first paragraph of the proposed regulation references 3 Congressional Acts (the Church Amendment, the Public Health Act, & the Weldon Amendment to an Appropriations Act). Those Congressional Public Laws (they each have PL #’s) authorize the HHS to make regulations, aka “rules”, regarding funding distribution by the Executive Branch. Frequently they are as ambiguous as that. (Btw: HHS does not get Congressional Additions, aka “earmarks”.) Once a draft rule is finalized, it (generally) appears in the Federal Register, as a notice of Federal Rulemaking. This is an Executive Branch function – executing the laws (those PLs) put in place by the Congressional Branch. If Congress was responsible for every rule and regulation, the Executive branch would, completely w/in reason, object. With this bill, rather than using medical definitions to determine a medical state, the proposed regulation suggests that the definition for a medical/physiological condition be based on a (bare minority opinion but plurality) poll: “There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus. “Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation.” A couple illustrative analogies of why this is severely problematic: this would be like polling the US public on what some percentage thinks qualifies as an “assault weapon” and using that as the definition to guide gun restrictions. Or using a poll to determine requirements for DoD Acquisition Programs. VR/Marg excellent post, you have seen right through this ruling and explained the issues really well.

See the bolded, above? HHS doesn't get to change that by fiat - that's why the First amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law". My reference to all the abortion bills in the Congressional record SHOULD have clued you in to that fact, but you were too busy yelling about the sky falling to figure it out. HHS (and many other departments) have the legal right to set policy without going to congress if they stay within the bounds laid out by congress, the bush administration presumably thinks this is one of those cases otherwise they would have gone to congress to change the rules. [sarcasm]Unless of course they are acting above the law but they would never do that[/sarcasm] Redefining the pill as a method of abortion means health providers can refuse that too. Do you understand what this rule change means now?

Where did I say my opinion was different than yours? I did say that I don't care what your opinion is even if it is the same as mine or different. Note to self, use small words and talk slow when responding to some posters. Dozens of people reading my posts probably don't care my opinions but they don't all get upset over it, why do you feel the need to make a big deal out of it, this is just a web site, it is not as if we change the world? Relax.

HIPAA, what has this got to do with this, afaik HIPAA has to do with regulating health insurance and patient privacy, not the ability of the department of health to set rules without congressional approval. This explains what HIPAA is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA If you are too lazy to look yourself for other sources (I just referenced one) try this one, it is the speaker of the house of representatives, I know you don't like her but if I am wrong about this then so is she, and I think she would know more about this than you. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441

This site is all about opinions, if you get you panties in a wad because other people think differently than you then you should stay away.

Okay, to get back on the subject here. The "idiots" that you refer to are people like you and me that were elected by their peers (again, people like you and me). If you don’t like how they are doing the job that they were elected to then vote for someone else the next time. It is not saying that you cannot have a procedure done, it just says that you can’t force me to do it. Have you ever wondered why so many businesses have the signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”? The world is not here to serve your every beck and call that you think you are entitled to. Also the statements that have been made in other post about the whole job thing that if you don’t do what you were hired for then you should be fired may not be fair and a driving force behind this bill. What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? The only thing that is being forced on you is your own perceptions. Abortion is an age old battle that the country is divided over. Our system is simple, the majority rules if there is a conflict. So if you want to change the way things are or may be then get the majority of the votes on your side. Then all of those terrible “ultra-right wing religious” people that are probably your neighbors since they are people like you too and not some knuckle dragging trolls that you are trying to make them out as will have their views suppressed instead of yours because in the end it is all about you and your views that are all that matters. I don't have a problem with a business refusing service to a customer on a whim, I do have a problem with the feds tell a hospital that they cannot fire someone for doing a job just for one particular reason or loose funding. What about all the other reasons people don't want to do thing at work that lead to getting fired. What is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? The singling out of one particular group for special protection is one problem. The other is expanding the term abortion to cover the use of the pill, it then allow those specially protected types to impose their morals more on others. It is almost impossible to get an abortion in some states even though it is legal, the pressure put on doctors to opt out is huge and it works, adding the pill will make contraception even harder to get for some women in some parts of the country.

As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION? And you have demonstrated yet again you don't know what you are talking about, read what out resident OBGYN said about this. The pill ALSO stops a fertilized egg attaching to the uterus. And it is not a bill, you are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit) read the original link, this is rule in the department of health and human services, it does not require congress to enact and guess who runs the department of health and human services, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, do you get it now?

So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... No other group is allow to discriminate against women, why should right wing religious folks be allowed to?